Wife won't let husband be spritual leader of house?

[ToeInTheWater]

cena, I don’t consider it legitimate debating technique to merely link to a website. If you feel like actually answering my questions as to why the other parts of Genesis 3 are not binding on men or women, let me know.

I thought the fact that women are in pain during labor is that punishment and the fact so many men throughout history had to do hard manual labor is punishment.

But it is possible, through modern medicine, for women to go through labor pain-free, or almost. Of course in ancient Biblical times this was impossible, but now it’s not. So has this “curse” expired? Or are women who opt for epidurals during labor sinning?

You also acknowledge that MANY but not all men “had to do hard manual labor”, even before the advent of modern technology. And yet, ALL women are still subject to Genesis 3 regarding a husband “ruling” over them?

Also, not even the website article you linked (yes, I actually did read it, in fact I’ve read it even before you linked it), actually stated that women are subordinate to men, as in, ALL women being subordinate to ALL men. It discusses the relationship between husbands and wives.

ETA: I am not saying that there aren’t Biblical and traditional justifications for wives submitting to husbands. Just that I really don’t think Genesis 3 is anywhere near a passage that proves anything.

 

[Sarcelle]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1200

Read the article. I liked how it takes pains to say that while wives are subject to their husbands, women, in general are not subject to men. The most egregious example of the misinterpretation of the men as bosses in all cases was when my uncle forbade my aunt from disciplining their youngest child, aged six. The boy’s older sisters were not permitted to teach or correct him. This was because men had authority over women, so the youngest child, had authority not only over his much older sisters but over his mother, simply because he was male.

 

[Xantippe]

cena, I don’t consider it legitimate debating technique to merely link to a website. If you feel like actually answering my questions as to why the other parts of Genesis 3 are not binding on men or women, let me know.

But it is possible, through modern medicine, for women to go through labor pain-free, or almost. Of course in ancient Biblical times this was impossible, but now it’s not. So has this “curse” expired? Or are women who opt for epidurals during labor sinning?

You also acknowledge that MANY but not all men “had to do hard manual labor”, even before the advent of modern technology. And yet, ALL women are still subject to Genesis 3 regarding a husband “ruling” over them?

Also, not even the website article you linked (yes, I actually did read it, in fact I’ve read it even before you linked it), actually stated that women are subordinate to men, as in, ALL women being subordinate to ALL men. It discusses the relationship between husbands and wives.

ETA: I am not saying that there aren’t Biblical and traditional justifications for wives submitting to husbands. Just that I really don’t think Genesis 3 is anywhere near a passage that proves anything.

Yes.

 

[Xantippe]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1200

That was a huge article to just drop on the thread without explaining what arguments you are espousing.

A few notes:

1. “The woman who chooses to marry, however, takes on the duty of obedience.”

And yet it’s not in the Catholic wedding vows.

1. Rachel Fay treats us to a long, long parade of quotes from scripture and papal encyclicals.

She quotes Pope Pius XI

“This subjection [to her husband] does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or the dignity due to wife.”

“If the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family.”

Hey, wait a second! This does not sound like an unqualified endorsement of wifely submission. It sounds like there are a lot of legitimate exceptions to wifely obedience–namely when the husband is being unreasonable, violating his wife’s dignity, or neglecting his duties.

 

[cena]

cena, I don’t consider it legitimate debating technique to merely link to a website. If you feel like actually answering my questions as to why the other parts of Genesis 3 are not binding on men or women, let me know.

But it is possible, through modern medicine, for women to go through labor pain-free, or almost. Of course in ancient Biblical times this was impossible, but now it’s not. So has this “curse” expired? Or are women who opt for epidurals during labor sinning?

You also acknowledge that MANY but not all men “had to do hard manual labor”, even before the advent of modern technology. And yet, ALL women are still subject to Genesis 3 regarding a husband “ruling” over them?

Also, not even the website article you linked (yes, I actually did read it, in fact I’ve read it even before you linked it), actually stated that women are subordinate to men, as in, ALL women being subordinate to ALL men. It discusses the relationship between husbands and wives.

ETA: I am not saying that there aren’t Biblical and traditional justifications for wives submitting to husbands. Just that I really don’t think Genesis 3 is anywhere near a passage that proves anything.

Not ALL women are subordinate to ALL men. A son is not superior to his mother and a woman employer is superior to her male employee. Someone who is not married has no husband to subjected to.

Wasn’t the question concerning husband and wives?

The fact that woman have a lot of pain during birth is a punishment. Giving birth would be a lot less painful or not painful at all if Eve did not do the things she did. That does not mean that taking medicine for that is a sin. The ones who do not have the medicine are experiencing the punishment. It does not say that you MUST have pain during child birth but that there will be. Having pain during it is not mandatory.

Men today are still expected to do their jobs which would be there ‘labors.’

 

[cena]

That was a huge article to just drop on the thread without explaining what arguments you are espousing.

A few notes:

1. “The woman who chooses to marry, however, takes on the duty of obedience.”

And yet it’s not in the Catholic wedding vows.

1. Rachel Fay treats us to a long, long parade of quotes from scripture and papal encyclicals.

She quotes Pope Pius XI

“This subjection [to her husband] does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or the dignity due to wife.”

“If the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family.”

Hey, wait a second! This does not sound like an unqualified endorsement of wifely submission. It sounds like there are a lot of legitimate exceptions to wifely obedience–namely when the husband is being unreasonable, violating his wife’s dignity, or neglecting his duties.

Exactly, I was trying to say earlier that the submission is not unconditional or anything like that.

 

[Bannan]

---

Below is from the homily by Fr. Cantalamessa – the preacher of the Pontifical Household. The “rule over you” – is ** not** an authorization from God-- for the man to rule over women (husband over wife) – but a bitter forcast – of what “pride” was going to lead to.

Your listening to a preacher over the pope.

 

[Bannan]

Hey, wait a second! This does not sound like an unqualified endorsement of wifely submission. It sounds like there are a lot of legitimate exceptions to wifely obedience–namely when the husband is being unreasonable, violating his wife’s dignity, or neglecting his duties.

I feel I’ve done a good job of qualifying what I meant by wifely submission. I hope you don’t mean to indicate I’m advocating an unqualified endorsement of the wife’s submission.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Not ALL women are subordinate to ALL men. A son is not superior to his mother and a woman employer is superior to her male employee. Someone who is not married has no husband to subjected to.

Wasn’t the question concerning husband and wives?

Well, it was you who stated earlier that “If Eve did not do that women would not be subordinate to men.” Not “if Eve did not do that wives would not be subordinate to husbands”.

The fact that woman have a lot of pain during birth is a punishment. Giving birth would be a lot less painful or not painful at all if Eve did not do the things she did. That does not mean that taking medicine for that is a sin. The ones who do not have the medicine are experiencing the punishment. It does not say that you MUST have pain during child birth but that there will be. Having pain during it is not mandatory.

Men today are still expected to do their jobs which would be there ‘labors.’

Okay, so why is it that “it does not say that you MUST have pain during child birth but that there will be” but it DOES say that wives MUST be in the power of the husbands"? Why is painful labor “not mandatory” for a woman, but being dominated by a husband is? Genesis 3 doesn’t make any such distinction. You are making it.

As for men still expected to do their jobs, what if a man is injured, disabled, laid off due to a recession, etc.? Most modern societies have some kind of safety net to support men (and women) in such circumstances. Only the most radical libertarians would suggest of doing away with all such safety nets (though we can debate the exact role of government vs. private citizens, etc.) So it is also “not mandatory” that men must do their jobs in order to get any sustenance.

 

[Bannan]

This was because men had authority over women, so the youngest child, had authority not only over his much older sisters but over his mother, simply because he was male.

I’m sorry to hear this, this is tragic. If we resorted to talking about how one gender was hurt vs the other, one situation at a time, we could use up all the bandwidth of the internet.

 

[Xantippe]

Okay, so why is it that “it does not say that you MUST have pain during child birth but that there will be” but it DOES say that wives MUST be in the power of the husbands"? Why is painful labor “not mandatory” for a woman, but being dominated by a husband is? Genesis 3 doesn’t make any such distinction. You are making it.

As for men still expected to do their jobs, what if a man is injured, disabled, laid off due to a recession, etc.? Most modern societies have some kind of safety net to support men (and women) in such circumstances. Only the most radical libertarians would suggest of doing away with all such safety nets (though we can debate the exact role of government vs. private citizens, etc.) So it is also “not mandatory” that men must do their jobs in order to get any sustenance.

Yes.

 

[Walking_Home]

Your listening to a preacher over the pope.

---

MULIERIS DIGNITATEM
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II
ON THE DIGNITY AND VOCATION OF WOMEN
ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARIAN YEAR

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church,** in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual**.

In relation to the “old” this is evidently something “new”: it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is “old”: what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.49

The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The “innovation” of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: “In Christ Jesus… there is no more man or woman”, but also wrote: “There is no more slave or freeman”. Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?

But the challenge presented by the “ethos” of the Redemption is clear and definitive.** All the reasons in favour of the “subjection” of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a “mutual subjection” of both “out of reverence for Christ”**. The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride.

 

[Bannan]

Why is painful labor “not mandatory” for a woman, but being dominated by a husband is? Genesis 3 doesn’t make any such distinction. You are making it.

I don’t know of any woman who delivered a child and didn’t experience pain somewhere throughout the process. The back aches, the hips stretch, and a million other side effects, and that’s not even counting pain during or after childbirth. I’d say its a pretty safe connection to make.

As for men still expected to do their jobs, what if a man is injured, disabled, laid off due to a recession, etc.? Most modern societies have some kind of safety net to support men (and women) in such circumstances. Only the most radical libertarians would suggest of doing away with all such safety nets (though we can debate the exact role of government vs. private citizens, etc.) So it is also “not mandatory” that men must do their jobs in order to get any sustenance.

I don’t think anyone here is saying that Adam’s curse has been lifted just because some man happens to be incapable of working, or doesn’t have to work because he’s pulling from society, are you?

 

[Bannan]

---

And I agree with that in it’s entirety. Pay close attention to where he said, “This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew.”

He’s saying that at first, it seems simple, and is easy to grasp. Then, it grows deeper throughout ones life, and proves to be challenging all the while. While entirely mutual, it should grow. How does a mutual submission grow? In my mind this means it grows more profound, it is deeper because it is a more total trust of the man and the woman.

 

[cena]

Well, it was you who stated earlier that “If Eve did not do that women would not be subordinate to men.” Not “if Eve did not do that wives would not be subordinate to husbands”.

Okay, so why is it that “it does not say that you MUST have pain during child birth but that there will be” but it DOES say that wives MUST be in the power of the husbands"? Why is painful labor “not mandatory” for a woman, but being dominated by a husband is? Genesis 3 doesn’t make any such distinction. You are making it.

As for men still expected to do their jobs, what if a man is injured, disabled, laid off due to a recession, etc.? Most modern societies have some kind of safety net to support men (and women) in such circumstances. Only the most radical libertarians would suggest of doing away with all such safety nets (though we can debate the exact role of government vs. private citizens, etc.) So it is also “not mandatory” that men must do their jobs in order to get any sustenance.

Well that was my mistake. Not every single woman is subject to every single man. Sorry, that was my mistake.
Also, not every single woman gives birth. Those who are infertile never give birth. Those who remain virgins do not give birth.
Not every single woman has a husband. The religious, the single, widowers, etc. do not have husbands.

Someone who can not work is not responsible.

 

[Walking_Home]

And I agree with that in it’s entirety. Pay close attention to where he said, “This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew.”

He’s saying that at first, it seems simple, and is easy to grasp. Then, it grows deeper throughout ones life, and proves to be challenging all the while. While entirely mutual, it should grow. How does a mutual submission grow? In my mind this means it grows more profound, it is deeper because it is a more total trust of the man and the woman.

---

What the Pope is saying is that what has to be overcome – is the “ideology” of the one sided submission – and what must establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs – is the mutual subjection/submission of the spouses – in reverence to Christ.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I don’t know of any woman who delivered a child and didn’t experience pain somewhere throughout the process. The back aches, the hips stretch, and a million other side effects, and that’s not even counting pain during or after childbirth. I’d say its a pretty safe connection to make.

Well, note that Genesis 3 states that God would INCREASE, not CREATE, Eve’s pains in childbirth. This suggests that even before the Fall, God’s design due to sheer biology, was for women to experience “some” pain. So the fact that modern medicine has not eliminated pain, does not mean that “therefore the curse is still operative”.

I don’t think anyone here is saying that Adam’s curse has been lifted just because some man happens to be incapable of working, or doesn’t have to work because he’s pulling from society, are you?

Hmm, the idea that man is “pulling from society” doesn’t sound very charitable. So is a man who accepts welfare, disability, or unemployment benefits sinning? Should he just lie down in a ditch and starve to death because that’s what God would want him to do?

Anyway, I think many posters here are questioning the idea of there being a “curse” in the first place, at least in the sense of “a curse that God planned to be operative for everyone until the Second Coming” as opposed to the “obvious effects of original Sin that are NOT part of God’s original plan”.

 

[Xantippe]

On reflection, I think there are probably (to over-simplify) four different kinds of marriage that we’ve been discussing:

–bad egalitarian
–bad traditional
–good egalitarian
–good traditional

Obviously, bad egalitarian marriages look totally different from bad traditional marriages–you can tell the difference between those two a block away. However, I would argue that good egalitarian and good traditional marriages may be almost indistinguishable to the casual observer. I was just thinking about the people I know who seem to have good marriages, and heck if I can tell if they are good egalitarians or good traditionalists. I can’t even say if my grandparents or my aunt and uncle are good egalitarians or good traditionalists.

My suspicion is that in a highly functional marriage, the basic structure will come with so much modifying fine print, that there is going to be, in the real world, a great deal of overlap between the practices found in good egalitarian and good traditionalist marriages.

 

[EasterJoy]

On reflection, I think there are probably (to over-simplify) four different kinds of marriage that we’ve been discussing:

–bad egalitarian
–bad traditional
–good egalitarian
–good traditional

Obviously, bad egalitarian marriages look totally different from bad traditional marriages–you can tell the difference between those two a block away. However, I would argue that good egalitarian and good traditional marriages may be almost indistinguishable to the casual observer. I was just thinking about the people I know who seem to have good marriages, and heck if I can tell if they are good egalitarians or good traditionalists. I can’t even say if my grandparents or my aunt and uncle are good egalitarians or good traditionalists.

My suspicion is that in a highly functional marriage, the basic structure will come with so much modifying fine print, that there is going to be, in the real world, a great deal of overlap between the practices found in good egalitarian and good traditionalist marriages.

Let us say that coming to a meeting of the minds could be likened to getting a horse onto a horse trailer.

In a bad authoritarian marriage, if the horse won’t get on the trailer, the “authority” will shoot it and drag it on if necessary, but the horse WILL be in the trailer, of that there is no doubt. Problem “solved.”

In a bad egalitarian marriage, a horse not inclined to go anywhere never gets anywhere *near *the trailer, and “no harm done.”

In a good marriage, the horse gets on the trailer, looking forward to the ride, no one gets kicked, and you can do the whole thing all over again for the ride home. Yes, peaceful ends achieved by peaceful means do look a lot alike.

 

[on_the_hill]

Frankly, I’m embarrassed that Catholics believe that pain in childbirth is connected to The Sin Of Eve, which is borderline fable anyway.

Taken any red pills lately? I’m having a hard time being Christain by not excoriating some of these posts with a flaming flamethrower.

Threads like this one make me want to quit CAF because so many posters are tragically out of touch with Catholicism.